The Mystery of Jesus Christ. (Page 78)

Zanjan: Consider how the money got spent - a big portion for widows and orphans since welfare didn't exist. Jesus and the Disciples used to have day jobs which they quit to teach the Faith, living off their personal savings until they became penniless.

Some of the money was used to supplement the traveling teachers but they were very frugal. I bet you wouldn't go into a field and pick and eat heads of grain raw for lunch. They didn't use the money to rent rooms - friends hosted them in their homes for a few days. They traveled light and on foot with personal possessions in a bag, like one extra change of clothes. They wouldn't need much as there was a good chance they'd be killed.

Later on, the Apostles and their companions brought tents and camping gear. A very long time after that, when there were enough Christians residing in one locale and it was safer, they entered the formative age, using the money to construct a modest "church" building.

There is no organization that can be run without financial support. The church was willing to take it from anybody. Early on, much of it came from wealthy women as the Faith supported more female rights.

The13th: He was in Tibet for a while:

GeraldtheGnome: There was a lot of things that confused me and made me think again until I read all of the for and against stuff, this included all similar names to Jesus in Portuguese, Spanish, French and so on. When you look at all of them properly then Jesus with J, e, s, u and s originated from Early Modern English after 1500 AD (of The Middle Ages), so that means that the name Jesus is a name that was first used after The Middle Ages, not before that. It also means that my joke about people in Spanish countries are were people commonly use Jesus is wrong. In the case of Spanish for example and even in French there are variations of the letters after the letter J and where exactly depends on which bit of Western Europe, yet only in those parts of Europe where the name is similar to Jesus in English (only so far back to a part of the time of Early Modern English). This means that Jesus was a name that no one used as far back as The Middle Ages. This however still doesn't answer one thing though since it only tells you when the name Jesus was first used, not when the title Christ was first used.

This for a start is the 1611 version of The King James Bible in its original form (in Early Modern English) with The Book of Matthew, chapter one, verse one.

The booke of the generation of Iesus Christ, the sonne of Dauid, the sonne of Abraham.

So in 1611 AD, the time of The Age of Enlightenment, there was no Jesus used as a name but there was the title Christ around though. With that I can tell you that no one was named Jesus as far back as even the first 11 years of The Age of Enlightenment. So Jesus Christ did not exist in The Iron Age, nor for that matter did anyone named Jesus. So any time someone tells you that Jesus Christ existed and that he does exist you know that whoever told you that is wrong.

https://youtube.com/shorts/cz_NSH_I_1g?feature=share

The black one is The Dali Llama, I'm sure of it. Just type that in, I hoped the video would come up, it didn't though.

ghostgeek: Did Jesus have a day job? Could be he was a member of the religious elite until he ruffled a few feathers and found the Romans practicing their carpentry skills on him. The fact is, we don't know because Paul never told us.

Zanjan: Refer to the culture: all who lived then understood so no reason to point out the obvious.

Traditionally, a young lad was taught his father's trade; or apprenticed under a male guardian, a close relative. Jesus's male guardian, Joseph, was a carpenter; so, as a young boy, Jesus would have watched and assisted him, learning how to build things. The experience would come in handy later.

Meanwhile, the family knew that Jesus was destined for another occupation when he came of age. According to Jewish religious law, the first male to open the womb would be dedicated to God, serving the Temple. The priests would be his new teachers so he would be a Rabbi. This is what Jesus really prepared for when He said he was going about His "Father's" business.

The priests lived on donations from the community, as was their right but Rabbis had to have a second job to support themselves. We know that once Jesus made His declaration at around 30 years old, He became a full time Teacher to His death.

He managed to get by mostly on the hospitality of friends but had the right to receive support from donations because He was like a high priest in a new, independent religion. Seeing as He took care of His mother, it's likely that some of those funds also went to her support, as a member of the Holy Family.

ghostgeek: I see ... but if that's so Jesus wasn't a carpenter, was he? One way or another, just like his brother James, he was some sort of wheeler dealer in Jerusalem.

Zanjan: Sure He was a Carpenter - the trade was pretty simple then. He could have completed his apprenticeship by 16 years old. A friend of mine got his carpenters certification at 18 years old.

Scholars say 14 years of Jesus's life is missing from the record - why? I think that's a no-brainer. If He was just sawing and hammering and saving his money, that had nothing to do with His destiny. Not worth mentioning; in those days, His occupation would be a given.

ghostgeek: Come on, Zanjan, stop kidding about. James was a cult leader in Jerusalem, so it's unlikely his brother, Jesus, took up whittling wood.

Zanjan: We don't know what Jesus's siblings did for a livelihood. Apparently, Joseph wasn't around when Jesus was a mature adult. Remember, it was the Iron Age; life was harsh and no cult leader could put food in his mouth by dispensing a bunch of words.

ghostgeek: We know what James did for a living because he more than once got up Paul's nose whilst doing it. He ran the Jesus Movement in Jerusalem.

Albert617: Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy are not New Testament scholars. They are ideological propagandists. Their thesis of the non-historicity of Jesus has been almost universally rejected by modern scholars, Christian and non-Christian.

ghostgeek: And New Testament scholars aren't ideological propagandists? They huff and puff over the Gospels but still haven't established that one line of text is the unvarnished truth.

Albert617: There is virtually universal consensus among critical scholars today (conservative and non-conservative). It would be a very difficult task to prove ideology in all of them.

GeraldtheGnome: The mystery is why anyone thinks that Jesus Christ does exist. The word and was not needed, as for propogandists, well there is no such word. Historicity is also not a proper word, just use the words historical authenticity rather than attempting to impress someone with a silly choice of words. The New Testament is just a collection of guesses about what came before it. I'm still not a fan of no spaces at times but so be it.

Albert617: The NT is not guesses. It's a record of history, and even critical scholars admit this. The genuine epistles of St. Paul, for example, reveal what he learned. He states in Galatians that he spent time with Peter and James. He even called James "the Lord's brother" in Gal. 4:4. The seven undisputed epistles of Paul are believed by virtually all NT scholars today to have been written by Paul. Also, the gospels were written by eyewitnesses or people who knew eyewitnesses. We should treat the NT as we do other ancient texts.

GeraldtheGnome: Yes, you keep telling yourself that, it’s basically how religion works anyway. If someone tells himself or herself that something is true for long enough then what is believed to be true must be true according to that person. It is blind faith, proof or even what is shown to be possibly true must be certainly true. People really can convince themselves of anything. It’s The New Testament, not ‘The NT’. It’s a record of historical myths and even critical scholars admit that. You’re a very persistent one with your excuses, I’ll give you that. So tell me, for entertainment purposes, what evidence have you got that proves that everything that you just told me is or true or is at least possibly true ? By virtually all does not mean the same as by all people.

Text, not texts. Yes, there are a lot of ancient documented myths. You already failed to prove that there is a god around that can create a rock can not lift. So you are unable to prove that even if a god is around somewhere right now that he is able to do anything. You should have given up the first time you saw that you were behind with things. I knew a bloke who knew a bloke who knew a bloke that told me that there were eyewitnesses is basically the kind of story that you have told me.

ghostgeek: How do we know the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or people who knew eyewitnesses? Heavens, nobody knows the names of those who penned the books, so claiming they were eyewitnesses is pure mythmaking.

“None of the synoptic gospels name their author or authors. In each case authorial attribution dates from the second century CE. “
Dr. Ian Bond, Pastor, Missionary, Evangelical

ghostgeek: Christians believe that the Gospels ( Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ) were written by those whose names appear in the title of the books. Most also believe that they were written in the same order as they appear in the Bible.

The truth is, all of the author’s names are sheer guesswork, or pious fraud. The titles “According to Matthew,” etc., were not added until late in the second century. All four Gospels were originally anonymous, none claim to be written by eyewitnesses, and all contain giveaways that they were written generations later, by well-educated Greek-speaking theologians, not illiterate Aramaic speakers.

There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by early Christian scholars. One of whom is Dr. Henry Dodwell who wrote: :

“We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named”
( Dissertations upon Irenaeus, Henry Bodwell, 1689 ).

In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ would have demanded the use of these Gospels, had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [ Justin ] — do not occur once in all his writings” ( Christian Records, p. 71 ).

[ https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/ ]

ghostgeek: Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.

They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are “according” to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, “They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority.”

Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: “They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever” ( Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24 ).

[ https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/ ]

ghostgeek: Not even the Bible claims that Mark was an eye witness to Jesus’ ministry. Modern, non Christian biblical scholars believe that the gospel of Mark was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories ( oral or written ), apocalyptic traditions ( probably written ), and disputations and didactic sayings ( some possibly written ). These stories were in circulation year after year, told in different languages and in different countries from that of Jesus.

That’s it. The source for the gospel of Mark is other peoples’ stories and writings. In other words, all of Mark’s sources were at best, second hand, more likely fifth or sixth hand. What happens to stories that circulate orally for years? Obviously, they come to be changed in the retelling. Thus, the source for much of the synoptic gospels is no more than hearsay.

Apologists dismiss the charge of “hearsay” by pointing to the strength of the “oral tradition”. The simple childhood game of “Telephone” is sufficient to illustrate the point that stories told mouth to mouth for 35 years or more can’t possibly retain their original content.

The Gospel of Mark is the first of the Gospels to proffer quotes allegedly from Jesus. We question how authentic these quotes could possibly be, given the convoluted path from Jesus’ lips to “Marks” writing and the years that passed since the words were allegedly spoken.

[ https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/ ]

Albert617: My response to GeraldtheGnome.

It was stated: "It’s a record of historical myths and even critical scholars admit that."

My Response: First, the phrase "historical myths" is a contradiction. If it's historical, than it's not myth, and vice versa. Second, most critical scholars today believe certain things about Jesus to be history. Here's a quote from the Agnostic (not Christian) NT scholar Bart Ehrman:

"Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. Even though this is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet, it is not the view of a group of writers who are usually labeled, and often label themselves, mythicists.” (Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (Harper One), 14).

Bart Ehrman also writes: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." (B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God, p. 256-257).

(Side note: Bart Ehrman lists 15 independent sources for the crucifixion. (see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth).

Albert617: ghostgeek wrote: "the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers."

My Response: The ancient Church historian Eusebius said the four gospels were never doubted by the orthodox church as coming from the apostles who's names they bore. (Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1).

The early Church Fathers knew that Matthew was written by Matthew. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1).

Mark, the companion and interpreter of Peter, took his preaching and made it the Gospel of Mark. The New Testament scholar William Lane Craig said most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark is based on eye-witness testimony (Craig, On Guard, p. 222).

Luke, Paul's personal traveling companion, as seen in the "we" sections of Acts 16:10-18 composed Luke-Acts (Luke 1:1-4). (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1).

John the Apostle wrote the gospel that bears his name (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.11). John used "we" many times (1:14; 1 John 1:1-3).

Zanjan: Ghost, from your article: “ All four Gospels were originally anonymous,”

Oh sure, a religious community is going to accept anonymous letters as scripture. Puleeese!
Furthermore, it’s not necessary that any single document be in any particular order. Note how quickly people extract just a verse or two at random or to make a point. Scriptures aren’t to be read like a novel.

“all contain giveaways that they were written generations later,”

Everyone who became a Christian in the first and second century received the Gospels orally and memorized them. Since the letters of the Apostles weren’t collated and circulated to all the churches, they were read to a congregation and committed to memory via songs. Any letter assumed to be Gospel had to match the song.

“stories told mouth to mouth for 35 years or more can’t possibly retain their original content.”

What about the “Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald” or “A Day in the Life”… “Cat’s in the Cradle”…….”John Brown”….”Casey Jones” …..Oh so many.

Zanjan: All the writers of the New Testament were contemporaries. They would have met each other because it was a very small community. Submissions end before 70 AD because the writers, except for John, were martyred. John didn’t mention the destruction of the Temple because he was writing about Christian events, not Jewish history.

Like today, any Christian could write whatever they wanted of their own understanding of mind, ethics, law, justice, social order, etc – that doesn’t imply they’re related to Christianity.

After John, Christians continued to document their history through their administration. All the exciting stuff - the heroic age - was over. The rest was anti-climactic. However, surely it's always thrilling to any community to welcome a new believer.

Albert617: There are pre-Pauline creeds, admitted even by liberal scholars embedded in the biblical text which date to the 30's. (Pre-Pauline means before Paul wrote them down). This is extremely early information. Early Creedal Formulas:

Luke 24:34; Romans 1:3-4; Romans 4:25; Romans 10:9. 1Corinthians 8:6; Philippians 2:6.

Also, the genuine epistles of Paul furnish very early evidence. Again, these epistles are considered by critical scholars to be written by Paul:

Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon.

A lot of what we know from the ancient world are in texts written hundreds of years after the events. The information we have in the NT is early and extraordinary.